TUKUR v. THE STATE
August 21, 2025MR. BOHALEE NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR V. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA & ORS
August 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-06) Legalpedia 61461 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Abuja
Tue Jun 10, 2025
Suit Number: CA/A/524/2014
CORAM
Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole-Justice of the Court of Appeal
Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko-Justice of the Court of Appeal
Donatus Uwaezuoke Okorowo-Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
CONOIL PLC
APPELLANTS
1.NIMEX PETROCHEMICALS LTD
2.NIMEX PETROLEUM LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
AREAS OF LAW: ADMIRALTY LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION, EVIDENCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, CONTRACT LAW, COMMERCIAL LAW, DEMURRAGE, CORPORATE LAW, COUNTER-CLAIMS, INTEREST CALCULATIONS, PLEADINGS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondents sued the Appellant in the Federal High Court claiming USD 2,948,619.38 as accumulated demurrage incurred from various petroleum product supplies through shipment, USD 127,060.62 as interest on the demurrage, and 21% interest on the entire judgment sum. The demurrage arose from vessels overstaying their laytime during delivery of petroleum products to the Appellant. The Appellant filed a counter-claim seeking N320 million for loss of profit, N120 million for loss of sales, $2,000,000 for damages to goodwill, and $221,909.74 for loss of profit due to blocked funds.
The Appellant challenged the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that once cargo was discharged, the matter became a simple debt case outside admiralty jurisdiction. The Appellant also challenged the corporate existence of the 1st Respondent at the time the action was commenced, and argued that the 2nd Respondent was only later joined by amendment. The Federal High Court found in favor of the Respondents on their claims while dismissing the Appellant’s counter-claim for lack of evidence. The Appellant appealed on eight grounds.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, except for partial success on the interest issue.
2. The Federal High Court had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the demurrage claims as they constituted admiralty matters.
3. The suit was competent as the Appellant had expressly admitted the corporate existence of the Respondents in their pleadings.
4. The trial judge was correct in granting reliefs in favor of the 2nd Respondent as joint plaintiffs must act together.
5. The judgment was not perverse and was supported by the evidence.
6. The award of pre-judgment interest was proper based on pleadings and deemed admissions.
7. The post-judgment interest rate of 21% was excessive and was reduced to 10% per annum as prescribed by court rules.
8. The dismissal of the counter-claim was correct as no evidence was led in support thereof.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondents.?
2. Whether or not there was a competent suit before the Federal High Court.?
3. Whether or not the trial Judge was in order when he granted reliefs in favour of the 2nd Respondent.?
4. Whether or not the judgment of the lower Court was perverse.?
5. Whether or not the lower Court was in order in awarding compound and pre-judgment interest in favour of the Respondents.?
6. Whether or not the lower Court was in order in dismissing the Counter-Claim of the Appellant.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE:
“The primacy of jurisdiction to the exercise of judicial power can never be overstated. Without the requisite jurisdiction, any exercise of judicial power will be null, void and of no effect and the outcome therefrom will be incapable of conferring any legal benefit.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION BY PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM:
“The law is however trite that it is the claim of the Plaintiff as submitted for adjudication which determines whether it comes within the statutory jurisdiction conferred on the Court.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION – DEMURRAGE CLAIMS:
“The dispute submitted by the Respondents was not about payment for the petroleum products supplied but for demurrage charges for the overstay of vessels used in delivering/transporting the petroleum products to the Appellant. This in my considered view is an admiralty matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower Court.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
ADMISSIONS – DEFINITION AND EFFECT:
“An admission has been defined also as ‘a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claim in an action’. The whole essence of an admission is to relieve the adverse party of the necessity to adduce evidence.” – Per OGUNBIYI, JSC in OMISORE & ANOR VS AREGBESOLA & ORS
ADMISSIONS – PROHIBITION AGAINST APPROBATION AND REPROBATION:
“Having thus expressly admitted the corporate existence of the 1st Respondent herein, the Appellant cannot be allowed to later challenge the same fact and demand proof thereof. The Appellant cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. The Courts will not permit a party the laxity to approbate and reprobate at the same time.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
JOINT PLAINTIFFS – REQUIREMENT TO ACT TOGETHER:
“The contention here fails to take cognizance of the legal position that joint plaintiffs in an action must act together in prosecuting their common cause of action.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
APPELLATE INTERVENTION – PERVERSITY TEST:
“Evaluation of evidence and ascription of evidential value thereto is the exclusive preserve of the lower Court which had the opportunity to see, hear and observe the demeanor of the witnesses and an appellate Court will only interfere where the evaluation was perverse.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
PERVERSITY – DEFINITION AND SCOPE:
“Perverse simply means persistent in error, different from what is reasonable or required, against weight of evidence. A decision may be perverse where the trial judge took into account matters which he ought not to have taken into account or where the judge shuts his eyes to the obvious.” – Per OPUTA, JSC in ATOLAGBE VS SHORUN
ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST – EVIDENTIAL VALUE:
“These admissions by the two witnesses called by the Appellant were rightly appraised by the lower Court as strengthening the case of the Respondents. They were admissions against interest made on oath and deserved to accrue in favour of the Respondents.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
COUNSEL’S LIMITATIONS – FACTS VERSUS LAW:
“While counsel is entitled to canvass the best possible arguments in support of his client’s case he must however never lose sight of his limits. Counsel is only master of the law, his advocacy skills no matter how strong cannot be substitute for the cold facts of the case as adduced by the witnesses.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST – REQUIREMENTS:
“Pre-judgment interest may only be claimed where it is contemplated by the express terms of the agreement between the parties or under some mercantile custom or trade usage known to the parties or under some principle of equity such as breach of fiduciary relationship etc. The entitlement must however be pleaded and evidence in support led at the trial.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST – COURT’S DISCRETIONARY POWER:
“The power of the Court to award post-judgment interest is discretionally exercised, as conferred by statute or Rules of Court. The discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily outside the precincts of the stated provisions.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
COUNTER-CLAIMS – BURDEN OF PROOF:
“The law is trite that onus of establishing a counter-claim is on the Appellant who, pursuant to Sections 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), was the party which stood to lose if no evidence was called.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
• Federal High Court Act Cap F12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Act No. 59, 1999 contained in Cap A5, LFN 2004
• Evidence Act 2011 (as amended)
• Federal High Court Rules 2009
